tv [untitled] November 13, 2010 8:00pm-8:30pm PST
welcome to the budget and finance committee. i'm supervisor john avalos the chair joined by supervisor ross mirkarimi the vice chair and supervisor sean elsbernd. the clerk is victor young. mr. young could you please share us your announcements? >> please turn off all cell phones. if you wish to speak if i am out a card and turn them in to me. if you present any documents please provide a copy to the clerk for inclusion into the
file. items acted upon will be on the board of supervisors agenda november 16, 2010s in otherwise stated. chairman avalos: thank you, mr. young. i apologize for coming a little late. actually very late. i want to thank sfgtv for hanging in there. could you please call item one. >> resolution approving professional services agreement 8994 curbside management program between fsp ppm management llc and in an amount not to exceed $26 million. chairman avalos: thank you. >> good morning, chair afpvalos. we are seeking approval of a new management contract with five
star parking management for an additional term of 2 1/2 years with an amount not to exceed 0 $10,500,000. as pointed out by the budget analyst, the initial request was to approve the whole contract but the budget analyst has recommended we come back for each approval. there are a possibility of three additional one-year options and we will obviously come back for approval if it becomes necessary to extend them. the curbside at san francisco airport is a very busy place. thousands of vehicles, profit vehicles and different modes approach the terminal every day. the airport has used professional curbside management in different forms since 1999 to manage and monitor the ground transportation services that access the curb and to help us increase usage of different
modes by helping with customer service. the contract is the result of a request for proposal process with fsp being chosen. the cost is funded with airport operating funds through transportation fees we collect from the various businesses that make money by accessing our roads and curbside and passengers. that is the general background. i would -- the budget analyst recommends approval and i would be happy to answer any specific questions you might have. chairman avalos: supervisor elsbernd? commissioner elsbernd: thank you. respecting the process, the one thing that stood out to me, this is one of those situations where we are saying goodbye to somebody who has a heck of a lot of experience and, frankly, i haven't heard a lot of people complain and seems to have done
a good job. i'm curious in the airport's process of -- were there negatives with the previous provider? what involved the change? why change to somebody who appears to have been successful? >> we -- i believe that how we have been approaching this contract has been on sort off a short-term. we have been issuing different r.f.p.'s and the staff made a determination that probably wasn't the best use of their time for continuity on the curb so they went into a longer-term for a contract which required us to come to the board and could do a new process. as part of the process a new company did emerge and not a huge amount higher but they did and in the process get more points and presented, i believe, a lower management fee that helped with their prior score.
chairman avalos: just on the process itself, i heard questions and concerns about outliers and the way that scoring was done. was that looked at in terms of did you ask the attorney to do any investigation of that process? >> yes. the current company did file -- i don't know if it was an official protest but sent a letter of protest with the result of the r.f.p., at which point the airport entered into a six-month extension with them to give us time to look at their concerns. o airport city attorney met with them and attorney as well as going over the evaluation sheets and scoring and their protest was found to be without merit. chairman avalos: what are the things that i saw -- one of the things i saw in the scoring is if you had experience and one of
the outlier panelists looked like they scored versus the other group five star didn't have the experience but was rated higher in terms of experience and to me it showed something that i didn't expect, i wouldn't expect to see given the length of time they have been there. >> what i can say, i can't speak to the individual panelists' scoring, but i do know when the city attorney looked at the question of experience and it is unique out there. all airports are different. there is not really a cookie cutter approach to this. so there haven't really been other companies that have, are we have had the shorter r.f.p.'s it has mostly been daja that
gave their bids because they were there. this time another company came together and if you would like me to have the airport manager talk about what he knows about five star parking and how they put together the proposal i would be happy to do that. i also believe five star representatives are here. but they put together a proposal that met all the qualifications and this panelist felt it was better. chairman avalos: why don't we hear from the budget analyst office and then more questions and we may discuss the actual contract. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, debra newman from the budget analyst office. as ms. widener has indicated, on february 1, 2010, the airport issued a competitive request for proposal. they did receive two bids, one from the existing contractor and the second from five star
parking. as shown in table one on page 1-3 of our report, five star parking received a slightly high higher evaluation rating and was selected as the preferred contractor. the airport -- the proposed resolution is requesting the contract for a greater amount of time, which would include not to exceed $26 million for not only the initial five years and six-month period but additional three optional years. our recommendation is that that be reduced. they do agree with that recommendation. the only other point that i would highlight to you is that under the propped agreement the cost will increase significan y
significantly. the monthly cost comparison is shown in our report on table 4, page 1-8. and the cost for salaries will increase 19.2%, tpreupg benefits 21.6% 6789 direct cost 250%, management fees 8.9% and overall increase is about 41%. however i would note that most of those increases are result of the opening of the new domestic terminal two, which is anticipated to open next year. as i noted, we are recommending that you amend the proposed resolution to not to exceed $ $10,450,000 for the initial t two-year and six month period instead of the $26 million they are requesting and that they come back to the board of supervisors if they want to extend for any one of those three optional year periods and
we would recommend approval as amended. commissioner mirkarimi: to the budget analyst office i agree with the amendment. i'm curious if terminal two was not opening and there had not been an inflation of cost in anticipating the additional coverage by f.s.p. for the translated cost of 41% higher, how would they even out with the current provider now? >> there were some other, through the chair, there were a few other additional cost increases. some increases in insurance. there were also additional staffing changes. but i don't have the amount offhand but most of the cost increases were the result of terminal two.
in terms of the comparison, i would defer to the airport staff for the specific breakdown. alternatively, we could come back to you and provide that, the separation of that analysis. commissioner mirkarimi: when you say they graded a little bit better, what does that translate into in terms of cost? >> i believe that i was speaking to staff who have been part of the process and most of the cost associated with the contract are fixed in terms of salary, uniforms, insurance, that sort of thing. the only cost that may change from contractor to contractor is the proposed management fee, which five star had a slightly lower management fee, which gave them a higher score on that portion of the evaluation. if i could go back for one second to supervi the question
star had been performing a similar service at the airport prior and they have extensive experience at the curbside at j.f.k. that may have factored into their higher scoring that you saw. chairman avalos: a question about i know there was a conversation i had with john martin, the director, last january, i believe. it was around assuring that there are multiple players who are able to be involved in the shuttle services is at the shu services. and from our perspective we want to make sure that we can support local businesses and it seemed like there was a large opening that was being made for, at that time, for super shuttles.
and that was kind of maybe elbowing out a little bit some of the local businesses. what is happening under this new curbside management program that we can expect that would keep the door open for businesses that are operating shuttles at the airport, local businesses? >> about a year ago the airport contemplated a new r.f.p. for the different zones. there are different zones. they believe that is what you are speaking with, we withdrew that r.f.p. based on concerns some of the smaller companies things remain the same. all the companies that have been permitted for 15 years to do business at the airport continue to do business at the airport. the curbside management contractor overseas the operations of the curbside at the airport but the airport sets the zones, sets the policies.
this contract has nothing to do with the zones or vans other than to implement the airport policies for the modes of transportation. nothing will change with this new contract. chairman avalos: thank you for your presentation. if there are no other questions from the committee we can go to public comment. >> 26 million sounds like a good pri price. and i think you are going to think it's nice. oh, keep it there. don't let it leave any higher than that. and we know where we are at.
oh, on item one. chairman avalos: thank you very much. if there are no other comments from the public we will close public comment on item one. commissioner mirkarimi: i will make a motion but i wanted to say that it doesn't sit completely well yet that you are transitioning in this way due to questions that my colleagues had about process and i think some other concerns that i haven't quite heard a very strong argument against it. so i think the budget analyst's recommendation on amendment is sound. so, i motion that we move this as amended with the budget analyst recommendation. chairman avalos: second by supervisor elsbernd. we will take it without objection. mr. young, if you could call item two. >> resolution approving contract number c.p.t. 626.02 repair of
damage of light rail vehicles between the city and county of san francisco through the san francisco phaoups transportation agency and ansaldobreda incorporated to rebuild up to seven damaged light rail vehicles in an amount not to exceed $32,854,622. chairman avalos: we have a representative from the m.t.a. >> good morning, mr. chairman and supervisors. i'm a senior engineer for sfmta renewal program. we are here for the approval of the proposed agreement between san francisco muni and ansaldobreda to rebuild seven damaged cars at $32,854,000 not
to exceed six years. it will provide us with additional cars to supplement the cars that go on prevent active maintenance and provide additional cars during special events like the baseball and the 49ers games. chairman avalos: thank you. ms. newman, if you could share your report with us. >> yes, mr. chairman and members of the committee, the proposed resolution that is before you would approve a new sole source agreement between the sfmta and ansaldobreda to rebuild up to seven damaged light rail vehicles. these seven vehicles were damaged in prior collisions and accidents. the total contract is not to exceed $32,854,622 over a period
of not to exceed six years. the sfmta operates a fleet of about 151 light rail vehicles, all of them were competitively built at bid and built by ansaldobreda. this contract is being requested on a sole source basis because of the unique experience and equipment and materials that they have. they are currently rebuilding 143 of our light rail vehicles, so this will be an additional seven that were previously damaged. chairman avalos: excuse me. we had approved earlier this year those other repairs and that was also a sole source contract as well. >> i believe that is correct.
i would note that the sfmta does show what the projected total funding sources are in table two on page 2-7 of our report. however, they only currently have $13 million of the total almost $33 million of this that is before you. that $13 million is approved in their existing 2010-2011 operating budget. the remaining $19.8 million will be subject to future appropriation approval by the board and certification by the controller's office. we would note that if they don't secure those additional funds, that they would go forward with up to the seventh number of vehicles that they secured the funding for. in terms of the sole source
contract, i would note that the m.t.a. did look at alternatives trying to do the work in-house themselves but they were feeling that it would take away from the regular scheduled maintenance. they also looked at the potential of competitively bidding it but because ansaldobreda has the unique equipment and materials and they are the only one that has manufactured these vehicles, they are recommending approval as the sole source contract. chairman avalos: these were the same considerations we made in approving the other sole source contract was the cost of in-house and putting out to bid what that would be in terms of not having somebody who is familiar with the vehicles. >> therefore we are recommending approval based on those considerations. chairman avalos: thank you. commissioner mirkarimi: to m.t. m.t.a., in the information, the documents that we were given, it says that these vehicles have
accumulated significant damage due to collisions. is that correct? >> that's correct. commissioner mirkarimi: it also says that the seven vehicles have accumulated between 200,000 and 400,000 since their enactment in between 1997. is it the collision damage or accumulated miles or both that warrant the repairs? >> it is damage due to the collisions that warrant the repairs on these vehicles. commissioner mirkarimi: i didn't see it but i'm curious the origins of the collisions. are these just in one of those dramatic collisions that we have read about in the paper or is it due to what reasons with regard to collisions in that seems to be the operative term but it doesn't give any more information? that seems to be the operative term but it doesn't give any more information? that seems to be
the operative term but it doesn't give any more informatiothat seems to be the operative term but it doesn't give any more information?? "that seems to be the operative term but it doesn't give any more information?that seems to be th term but it doesn't give any more information? >> most were due to collisions and at the same time since they have been parked for a few years they have been used as spare parts. i have some photos that i could share if you wish. commissioner mirkarimi: actually, i would like to see. but i would like to understand, if the collisions are our own doing or if in fact they are due to the fault of those that we may have collided with? >> i would like to call my assistant who would know more about that. commissioner mirkarimi: just a little background. >> good morning. with regard to the collisions, a lot of them were like the two-car collision like the ones that happen, the collision that was in front of the ball park. those are the types of
collisions that are mainly, that happen that this pays for. the other collision was the won on the m line with a two-car collision. commissioner mirkarimi: typically speaking, if we are liable, obviously this is a cost we have to shoulder. so, all of these collisions are due to our own liability, not caused by anyone else. correct? >> that is correct, supervisor. commissioner mirkarimi: so it is not with anybody who may have been at fault but in incapacitated, unable to pay for the repairs? >> we also have minor collisions with other, like a truck or another vehicle. a lot of those damages are minor and those are being repaired in-house. >> through the chair, supervisor
mirkarimi, i would note that as part of the anticipated revenues to pay for this contract there is approximately $2 million from insurance proceeds that will be received based on the accidents that have occurred. commissioner mirkarimi: i'm curio curious, of the seven damaged vehicl vehicles, of what that $2 million covers? >> my understanding is from two vehicles. commissioner mirkarimi: so, two out of the seven is $2 million. that is correct? >> yes. well, the damage, 1407 and 1433, these two vehicles -- the accident happened after we were able to obtain insurance. so, the insurance will pay for these two vehicles after the $2.5 million deductible.
commissioner mirkarimi: can you remind me if any of these were already seen as driver related? >> i'm not sure of the outcome of the investigation but i believe the accident in west cordoba was driver related. commissioner mirkarimi: is there any information if it is operator related or not? >> i don't know the details on the accident. i just have the information on the insurance received. commissioner mirkarimi: thank you. chairman avalos: why don't we go to public comment? thank you for your presentation. any member of the public that would like to comment please come forward. >> this price may never come again. time to fix these vehicles up.
it is time to mend. but i'm glad for all the good rid rides. i hope you are on my fixing side. and make it the best that it has ever been. i don't want you to miss this one for the world, as it came it did unfurl. i want it the best it can be in the world. don't miss this one for the world. chairman avalos: thank you. >> good morning. i believe it is still morning. i'm here to speak neither for or against this. i have three things i would like to point out. when -- they are right, when the vehicles are wrecked and they are in the yard they get can
pallized -- cannibalized which means we don't have the parts. then it goes on three or four different unions to fix the car. some of the repairs that can be done by my members cannot be done because we have to bring other people in and it becomes cumbersome. mainly, if they get a wreck and the frames are bent then we don't have the facility to repair the frames. we can do the body work and mostly everything else. when m.e.e. was built it was supposed to have facilities for the breda cars and we don't have the facilities. some day in the future it would bode the city well to make sure we have the pfacility because what we are doing is permanently outsourcing our bredda cars and that is not what we do with the
other trolleys. i don't think that is what was meant to be done. the other problem is i have body men that have not been permanently replaced or their positions restored. so in the body shop when you hear that, hear the mechanics or body men can't do the work it is because of the 12 days or 24 or the furloughs that they don't replace anyone. so when a person because of wellness, we have high retirement the guy from the floor goes up and replaces him but we lose a guy on the floor. just stole two guys from the body shop and diesel and put them pickup metro. chairman avalos: thank you. the m.t.a. can probably answer this but do you know what is the plan for